replay_agent_session

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the substance: data is derived from recorded shell commands, rows contain prompts, commands, exit codes, directories and timestamps, and results come one page at a time. It does not mention permissions, retention limits, or behavior when a session_id matches nothing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and ending with the prerequisite. Mostly dense and waste-free, though the long colon list is slightly heavy for a description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover returns, and it does so by naming the row fields and the paging model. The detail parameter's effect on rows is only in the schema, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, offset, detail, and session_id are already fully documented in the schema (including prefix tolerance and next_offset paging). The description's only added signal is 'one page at a time,' restating pagination the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete verb+resource: it returns the chronological timeline of one agent session built from recorded shell commands, paginated. It enumerates the row content (prompts, commands, exit codes, directories, timestamps). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_agent_session or session_history, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear prerequisite: obtain the session_id from find_agent_session or resolve_current_agent_session first, which routes the agent correctly. There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement of the alternative to use when a full unpaginated session view is wanted.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.